Christian Science Monitor reviews Climate Cover Up

In the book ‘Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,’ James Hoggan says the campaign to create skepticism about climate change is ‘by far and away the biggest public relations campaign that I’ve ever seen.’

Climate Cover-up seeks to show the fraudulent way some of the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony “think tanks,” and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth. http://ezinearticles.com/?Bowtrol-Colon-Cleanse-Review—Does-Bowtrol-Cleanse-Work?&id=2926555

The latest major episode in the climate cover-up was of course the “notorious” Climategate – where someone broke in, stole megabytes of emails from CRU at the University of Anglia, then combed through to find material that could be quote-mined to misrepresent individuals and the field of climatology just in time for Copenhagen. Not that much different from the original Watergate, except of course in Watergate it was those who broke in – the criminals – who were treated as criminals.

However, it is beginning to look like this may have backfired in some ways. There are of course the sales of “Climate Cover Up” which are helping to acquaint more people with the denial industry. I know that it was one of the factors that got me interested in buying the book – then going on to buy “Doubt is Their Product.” Likewise, prior to Climategate, Real Climate had less than 9,000,000 unique hits since 2004. Today, Christmas Day, they are within 6000 hits of **10,000,000** – and it isn’t even noon in my neck of the woods.

And with the increased traffic, I have seen responses like this out of Europe:

“I have been shocked and appalled to read of the connections between the AGW deniers (I now feel justified in using the term) and other denial campaigns such as those associated with the health risks of tobacco and the environmental risks of acid rain. This may be old news to some in the US, but I suspect that many of us in Europe are not as clued up on these things and will be as outraged as I am.”

The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling (Hyped by a certain James Hansen at the time), a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.

By 2008 CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.

Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker. http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12182009.html

Phlogiston writes:
“The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling (Hyped by a certain James Hansen at the time), a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons”

Is this another lie? more misinformation?
http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/27/james-hansen-ice-age-myth/

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE